Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Jon Rohner is gay, according to the Sunday Louisville Courier-Journal, and he wants to give blood, but he can't because there is a ban on homosexual men giving blood because of all the diseases they contract through indiscriminate sex with each other. But it doesn't matter because it makes him cry.

Yes, homosexuals are 60 times more likely to have HIV, and they have a sometimes drastically higher rate of other diseases like Hepatitis (both A and B), MRSA, Proctitis, Shegellosis, as well as all the other convention STDs like Gonorrhea and Syphilis and a whole bunch of other diseases that we can't pronounce and a handful that they invented themselves and that's why federal health officials don't want them giving blood. But does this justify making gays like Rohner feel bad?

Isn't it wrong to prevent one group of people from giving blood just because they have all kinds of exotic diseases and will infect the blood supply?

It's bigotry. That's what it is. It's just another excuse to hate the gays.

I mean what do people think this is? A public health issue? Don't they realize that, like every other issue having to do with gays, this is a political issue?

And don't they realize that it doesn't matter whether it's science, or medicine, or education, that everything having to do with gays is a political issue and that we must, no matter what the consequences, make sure we don't do anything that upsets gays and makes them feel bad and cause them to cry?

There's so much hatred and cruelty in the world it, ... it, ... it makes me want to cry.

It makes some people cry when they think of all the diseases that would be introduced into the blood supply if the ban on homosexuals giving blood were lifted, but these are straight people, and, as everyone knows, it doesn't matter if straight people get upset. They're bigoted anyway.

What matters is when gay feeling bad. And then we have to change public policy. Otherwise they might get upset. And cry. And that's bigoted. And hateful.

Chris Hartman at the Fairness Alliance isn't crying though. He's mad because so many people see the integrity of the nation's blood supply as a public health issue when it's not.

“It is clear discrimination ... written into policy,” says Hartman of the federal ban. “It’s a continued vestige of the fear and prejudice that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community face.”

Fear? About a high risk group infecting the nation's blood supply? Get over it people!

The bigoted people who are concerned about the integrity of the blood supply are just being selfish. And hateful. They're concerned with, like, protecting people from disease. These are people who don't have indiscriminate sex with people they don't know and they think they have the right to be protected from all the diseases that the people who do have indiscriminate sex with people they don't know.

Bigots.

If they're getting a blood transfusion and they are concerned that a group of people with a rate of HIV infection of 60 times that of the general population giving blood, they need to do a little soul searching and realize how hateful they are being.

Sure, they get infected with HIV, but they would deserve it. It would serve these hateful bigots right.

From the FDA's website: "Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections."

Certainly not all people who have been IV drug uses, engaged in sex for money, had transplants of animal tissue, or traveled to certain countries have HIV, other bloodborne diseases, malaria or vCJD, but we must exclude them from donating blood in order to protect the population from those diseases. I don't hear anyone saying we should let those people donate or that we are discriminating against them. A similar situation exists with the case of using universal precautions. Healthcare workers must use gloves, etc for everyone even though everyone does not carry disease. It is done for everyone's protection. I wouldn't want them to do anything short of that.

Here is the address for where I found the above quote:http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htmIncidentally, that "60 times more likely" fact that Martin used is from the FDA.

Male homosexuals are 60 times more likely to have HIV because of the specific and identifiable behavior they engage in by virtue of their being homosexuals.

Can you identify the specific and identifiable behavior Kentuckians engage in that make them 5 times more likely than Vermonters to have AIDS other than that Kentucky may contain subgroups (homosexuals or others) who are more at-risk?

"Can you identify the specific and identifiable behavior Kentuckians engage in that make them 5 times more likely than Vermonters to have AIDS other than that Kentucky may contain subgroups (homosexuals or others) who are more at-risk?"

Well, KY doesn't have a larger relative homosexual population than VT, that's for sure.

'Can you identify the specific and identifiable behavior Kentuckians engage in that make them 5 times more likely than Vermonters to have AIDS other than that Kentucky may contain subgroups (homosexuals or others) who are more at-risk?'

What on earth does an 'identifiable behaviour' have to do with this??? If Kentuckians are 5 times more likely to have HIV than Vermonters, than who cares what 'behaviour' that is caused by - if your argument is that the population must be protected from 'groups' who have increased incidence of HIV, then that should apply to Kentuckyians as well, correct?

Is Rohner just a lone crank, or does the entire gay community embrace his logic?

And, presuming gays aren't happy with the status quo, is there anything stopping gays from organizing their own blood drives and their own blood banks?

And, if they ever do so, will the blood get labeled appropriately so we'll know which set of odds we're choosing?

And, at the personal level, wouldn't a gay have the same incentive as, say, me, to choose the straight blood over the gay blood? For his own use, I mean.

Or would he take what's behind door number two just to express solidarity with blood-giving gays?

Even people who usually take a strong stand on ideology tend to waiver when it's their own lives being affected. E.g., Brezhnev could tout the virtues of socialist medicine in one breath, and then have a heart operation in the U.S. because, after all, it's one thing to make policy for the People, and quite another to have to live it yourself.

I'm sure that Singring is equally outraged about the discrimination against people who spent three months or more in the UK between 1980 and 1986, and are therefore permanently ineligible to give blood in the U.S. It's just bigotry. Another excuse to hate Anglophiles.

'I'm sure that Singring is equally outraged about the discrimination against people who spent three months or more in the UK between 1980 and 1986, and are therefore permanently ineligible to give blood in the U.S. It's just bigotry. Another excuse to hate Anglophiles.'

Seamus, it might surprise you to find out that I am in favour of restricting blood donation based on risk groups - as long as the rationale is evidence-based and not arbitrarily discriminatory.

What I am 'outraged' by is the fact that Martin writes this screed, insisting like some playground bully to constantly make fun of the fact that a gay man cried when he was trying to donate blood - an action we should in fatc all be applauding and supporting. But for Martin, thsi just seems to be another opportunity to make snide remarks that have nothing to do with the empirical evidence we should be contemplating in this context.

A problem I see with the current policy is that is categorically excludes all men who have has sex with another man since 1977. This is a ridiculous criterion if the intention is to keep people who have an increased risk of STD infection from donating blood. Meanwhile, people who have admittedly had sex with an HIV positive person are good to go again after a year. What is the logic in that?

Moreover, all blood that has been donated is tested for HIV and other STDs, so the only problematic group are people who have contracted and STD recently so it cannot yet be detected.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a rule that states that if you have had unprotected sex with more than one partner in the past half year you are ineligable to donate blood? That seems like a much more rational approach to me.

Seamus, it might surprise you to find out that I am in favour of restricting blood donation based on risk groups - as long as the rationale is evidence-based and not arbitrarily discriminatory.

I'm confused. Is the prohibition on blood donation by people who have lived in the UK "arbitrarily discriminatory" or is it supported by an "evidence-based" "rationale" (more "evidence-based," that is, than the prohibition on blood donation by a male who has had sex with another male since 1977)?